Diesels About To Get Expensive????

[daemon]

uk_vette said:

.
.
Civic 1,8L and BMW 320d E46.

We have both.
Wife drives Civic and get average of 47 mpg back and forth to work.
Work return is 34 miles motorway, and 6 miles A road, 40 miles per day.

I drive the 320d and get average of 62 mpg back and forth to work, 40 miles motorway, and about 8 miles A road. 48 miles daily trip.

The diesel BMW is way more economical, even when you factor in the extra few pence per liter for fuel.

Paid £4200 for the 2008 Civic, and £1200 for the 2003 BMW.

Is that "back and forth to work" on the trip computer or overall average across the course of a fill of fuel measured brim to brim?

If its the latter that genuinely surprises me on both cars.

Any 320ds of that era i've owned have averaged around 45mpg and i've had half a dozen.

That would put your 2003 car up there with the best of the best of the latest medium exec saloons.

Edited by daemon on Friday 22 August 18:57

[TheFinners]

daemon said:

I was going to ask was the new 320i anyway decent - i remember driving a four pot 320i before once and it was awful. BUT i think the new ones are the turbo models like my wifes z4?

Could be wrong

The old man has a F31 320i M Sport, 2.0t 181bhp (though dyno tests seem to suggest the true figure begins with a 2!). It is very good for a 4 cylinder engine, pretty smooth and very quiet, with plenty of low down torque. Perhaps more surprisingly it revs pretty well for a modern turbo engine, with a slight step up in the power delivery at ~4000rpm and it does not start to tail off until around 6500rpm.

[Devil2575]

daemon said:

Is that "back and forth to work" on the trip computer or overall average across the course of a fill of fuel measured brim to brim?

If its the latter that genuinely surprises me on both cars.

Any 320ds of that era i've owned have averaged around 45mpg and i've had half a dozen.

That would put your 2003 car up there with the best of the best of the latest medium exec saloons.

Edited by daemon on Friday 22 August 18:57

Surely a lot depends on how it is driven.

[GreenArrow]

trouble with diesel cars is that you have to be disciplined to get the best out of them! All that stonking torque means its easy to push on and every opportunity and lose a lot of that valuable MPG. Best I did in my A3 TDI 1.9 was 59 MPG for a tank, brim to brim, keeping to 60-65 MPH on my commute.

[daemon]

Devil2575 said:

Surely a lot depends on how it is driven.

Of course it will.

However some people extract out their commuting / longest journeys as an example of what they're getting to the gallon, when their average over the course of a brim to brim fill would probably be up to a third less.

Having owned various 320ds i've never really seen an e46 do more than 45mpg over the course of a fill over fuel, hence my question.

My son has a 2009 120d 177BHP 6 speed, and hes seeing about 46/47 - smaller car and later more economical engine.

[daemon]

TheFinners said:

The old man has a F31 320i M Sport, 2.0t 181bhp (though dyno tests seem to suggest the true figure begins with a 2!). It is very good for a 4 cylinder engine, pretty smooth and very quiet, with plenty of low down torque. Perhaps more surprisingly it revs pretty well for a modern turbo engine, with a slight step up in the power delivery at ~4000rpm and it does not start to tail off until around 6500rpm.

Seems to be the same engine then.

In the z4 they've got a little bit of a rorty note going on which is nice.

[Devil2575]

daemon said:

Devil2575 said:

Surely a lot depends on how it is driven.

Of course it will.

However some people extract out their commuting / longest journeys as an example of what they're getting to the gallon, when their average over the course of a brim to brim fill would probably be up to a third less.

Having owned various 320ds i've never really seen an e46 do more than 45mpg over the course of a fill over fuel, hence my question.

My son has a 2009 120d 177BHP 6 speed, and hes seeing about 46/47 - smaller car and later more economical engine.

Like I said though it depends on how it's driven. Some cars do lots of miles on the commute at constant speeds. I know people who do over 100 miles per day and extract some truely impressive mpgs out of cars. Sure round the doors they get much less but because the miles driven on a run dominate they have a much bigger effect on the mpg over a full tank. A lot also depends on your cruising speed. If you are prepared to drop from 70 to 60 you will see a decent improvement in fuel consumption. At 70+ mpg my 2003 Focus Diesel will do at best mid to late 40s, however drop to 60 mph and it will do late 50s easily.

[irocfan]

to be honest I'm quite impressed with the RRS... mixed driving is pulling up 30mpg which IMO is not a bad figure at all. Be interested to see what a long trip is like

[daemon]

Devil2575 said:

Like I said though it depends on how it's driven. Some cars do lots of miles on the commute at constant speeds. I know people who do over 100 miles per day and extract some truely impressive mpgs out of cars. Sure round the doors they get much less but because the miles driven on a run dominate they have a much bigger effect on the mpg over a full tank. A lot also depends on your cruising speed. If you are prepared to drop from 70 to 60 you will see a decent improvement in fuel consumption. At 70+ mpg my 2003 Focus Diesel will do at best mid to late 40s, however drop to 60 mph and it will do late 50s easily.

Yup. Totally agree. My driving is predominantly long steady commuting runs. Maybe 50 miles per week of non commuting round town stuff.

And yes, its down to how its driven too. If you drive with economy in mind you can get serious gains.

[uk_vette]

daemon said:

uk_vette said:

.
.
Civic 1,8L and BMW 320d E46.

We have both.
Wife drives Civic and get average of 47 mpg back and forth to work.
Work return is 34 miles motorway, and 6 miles A road, 40 miles per day.

I drive the 320d and get average of 62 mpg back and forth to work, 40 miles motorway, and about 8 miles A road. 48 miles daily trip.

The diesel BMW is way more economical, even when you factor in the extra few pence per liter for fuel.

Paid £4200 for the 2008 Civic, and £1200 for the 2003 BMW.

Is that "back and forth to work" on the trip computer or overall average across the course of a fill of fuel measured brim to brim?

If its the latter that genuinely surprises me on both cars.

Any 320ds of that era i've owned have averaged around 45mpg and i've had half a dozen.

That would put your 2003 car up there with the best of the best of the latest medium exec saloons.

Edited by daemon on Friday 22 August 18:57

.
.
Got to eventually fill up the 320d

I did 615 miles, and the yellow light had been on for abot 10 miles.
So guessing I could have run to about 650 to chance my luck.

Any way.

At Tesco I put in 57 liters. about 12,55 gallons.
Giving 49 mpg.
A good 11 mpg short of what the lying trip computer said.
I know many trip computers are reading on the high side, but 11 mpg high is way out of line.
Still 49 mpg is great as far as I am concerned.

Haven t filled the Civic up yet, she is at 325 miles, and down to quarter tank.

vette

[CraigyMc]

neil1jnr said:

... I assume your 3 series weighed more than my leon did too?

Oh, by the way:


That was with me in it (I weigh 82kg), so remove about 85kg or so as I was clothed.
The car had 3/4 of a tank of fuel in it.

The spooky thing is that puts it at about 1495kg, which is also what the V5C lists.

[heebeegeetee]

Over the past 1,672 miles my 2003 smart brabus has averaged 39.77 mpg, with it's best of 45.45 mpg on a run from Brum to London and back.

I've just taken an empty trailer in my '99 Vag-dag-dag VW Bora from Brum to Windermere, collected a smart car and trailered it back. It averaged 40.26 mpg round trip.

Thus a petrol smart is at it's most economical when being towed by a diesel.

[daemon]

uk_vette said:

.
.
Got to eventually fill up the 320d

I did 615 miles, and the yellow light had been on for abot 10 miles.
So guessing I could have run to about 650 to chance my luck.

Any way.

At Tesco I put in 57 liters. about 12,55 gallons.
Giving 49 mpg.
A good 11 mpg short of what the lying trip computer said.
I know many trip computers are reading on the high side, but 11 mpg high is way out of line.
Still 49 mpg is great as far as I am concerned.

Haven t filled the Civic up yet, she is at 325 miles, and down to quarter tank.

vette

I think you did well to get 49mpg.

[ORD]

49mpg? 10 mpg better than an equivalent petrol. Not great.

[daemon]

ORD said:

49mpg? 10 mpg better than an equivalent petrol. Not great.

The e46 320ds arent terribly economical. Any i've had did around 43-45mpg.

That was my point.

[Devil2575]

ORD said:

49mpg? 10 mpg better than an equivalent petrol. Not great.

Really? So you think it would be easy to get 39 mpg from an E46 320i or do you mean a 318i?

320i combined mpg is 31
318i combined mpg is 38
320d combined mpg is 49

I'm not sure I'd describe either of the petrol cars as equivalent, the 320d being quicker than the 318 but slower than the 320i.

10 mpg is still a 25% improvement which if you do a few miles is worth a few quid, 500 notes if you do 15k a year. BMW diesels are also pretty good and if the alternative is only a 4 pot petrol then the diesel is probably the better choice.

[ORD]

Devil2575 said:

Really? So you think it would be easy to get 39 mpg from an E46 320i or do you mean a 318i?

320i combined mpg is 31
318i combined mpg is 38
320d combined mpg is 49

I'm not sure I'd describe either of the petrol cars as equivalent, the 320d being quicker than the 318 but slower than the 320i.

10 mpg is still a 25% improvement which if you do a few miles is worth a few quid, 500 notes if you do 15k a year. BMW diesels are also pretty good and if the alternative is only a 4 pot petrol then the diesel is probably the better choice.

I certainly agree that the BMW 4 pot diesels are more impressive than the 4 pot petrols. I would still go for the petrol, although there is much less in it than with other manufacturers.

There is a lot in common between turbo 4 pots of either flavour, so I can see why people go for the diesel.

Bizarrely, the 320d is more progressive and predictable in its power delivery than a petrol C class 4 pot I had the other day (although some of that may be down to the MB having a terrible auto box). The little petrol engine was more like an old school turbo diesel than was the 320d engine.

[survivalist]

ORD said:

Devil2575 said:

Really? So you think it would be easy to get 39 mpg from an E46 320i or do you mean a 318i?

320i combined mpg is 31
318i combined mpg is 38
320d combined mpg is 49

I'm not sure I'd describe either of the petrol cars as equivalent, the 320d being quicker than the 318 but slower than the 320i.

10 mpg is still a 25% improvement which if you do a few miles is worth a few quid, 500 notes if you do 15k a year. BMW diesels are also pretty good and if the alternative is only a 4 pot petrol then the diesel is probably the better choice.

I certainly agree that the BMW 4 pot diesels are more impressive than the 4 pot petrols. I would still go for the petrol, although there is much less in it than with other manufacturers.

There is a lot in common between turbo 4 pots of either flavour, so I can see why people go for the diesel.

Bizarrely, the 320d is more progressive and predictable in its power delivery than a petrol C class 4 pot I had the other day (although some of that may be down to the MB having a terrible auto box). The little petrol engine was more like an old school turbo diesel than was the 320d engine.

I'd agree that this is true for the E46 and, to a point, with the E90 as well. The F30, however, seem to have reversed the trend as the 4 cylinder petrols are now turbos as well and therefore it's a much fairer comparison. If you look at cost in terms of MPG, it varies massively by use case. Driving in Towns and Cities there's less difference than on the motorway, even with the F30.

What is clear is that due to legislation, VED and Company Car costs have been stacked very much in favour of diesel in the past 5 or 6 years. The rising cost of fuel and the fact that a large percentage of the car buying (or renting) public seem to increasingly measuring the 'cost' of motoring in terms of week to week running costs, seemingly ignoring capital cost and depreciation also add to a view that higher MPG must be better. The trend towards PCP and private leasing also add to this.

The end result is a huge growth in diesel car sales, regardless of whether it's the correct fuel for the job or not. As their main aims are sales and profit you can't blame the manufacturers for giving us what we, or our government, asked for.

Also, as it takes a while to design and build a car, it has taken a while for them to recognise the demand for smaller petrol cars - or work out that they can get them to work in such a way as to deliver low co2 numbers in the test.

Bit of a rant, but the end result is that I don't think diesels are about to get expensive. The purposed measures, which are still a little vague at this stage, are more likely to influence new fleet and private sales, PCP and Lease costs - when they finally come in. The impact on older diesels is likely to be lower and if you believe the horror stories on here they'll all be written off by then due to the high cost of turbo failures, high pressure fuel rails failing and DPF clogging ;-)

In the short term, the petrol head community will bemoan that all the 2nd hand cars are diesel - but it's not just diesel that's to blame. I'd argue it's the fact that most people place practicality, brand image and age at the top of their priority list when buying a new car (the ones we end up buying used) - in most cases placing a numb, boring car at the top of the list. I don't want to buy one of those used, regardless of what fuel goes in it.

Edited by survivalist on Saturday 6th September 21:00

[Devil2575]

survivalist said:

I'd agree that this is true for the E46 and, to a point, with the E90 as well. The F30, however, seem to have reversed the trend as the 4 cylinder petrols are now turbos as well and therefore it's a much fairer comparison. If you look at cost in terms of MPG, it varies massively by use case. Driving in Towns and Cities there's less difference than on the motorway, even with the F30.

What is clear is that due to legislation, VED and Company Car costs have been stacked very much in favour of diesel in the past 5 or 6 years. The rising cost of fuel and the fact that a large percentage of the car buying (or renting) public seem to increasingly measuring the 'cost' of motoring in terms of week to week running costs, seemingly ignoring capital cost and depreciation also add to a view that higher MPG must be better. The trend towards PCP and private leasing also add to this.

The end result is a huge growth in diesel car sales, regardless of whether it's the correct fuel for the job or not. As their main aims are sales and profit you can't blame the manufacturers for giving us what we, or our government, asked for.

Also, as it takes a while to design and build a car, it has taken a while for them to recognise the demand for smaller petrol cars - or work out that they can get them to work in such a way as to deliver low co2 numbers in the test.

Bit of a rant, but the end result is that I don't think diesels are about to get expensive. The purposed measures, which are still a little vague at this stage, are more likely to influence new fleet and private sales, PCP and Lease costs - when they finally come in. The impact on older diesels is likely to be lower and if you believe the horror stories on here they'll all be written off by then due to the high cost of turbo failures, high pressure fuel rails failing and DPF clogging ;-)

In the short term, the petrol head community will bemoan that all the 2nd hand cars are diesel - but it's not just diesel that's to blame. I'd argue it's the fact that most people place practicality, brand image and age at the top of their priority list when buying a new car (the ones we end up buying used) - in most cases placing a numb, boring car at the top of the list. I don't want to buy one of those used, regardless of what fuel goes in it.

Edited by survivalist on Saturday 6th September 21:00

I agree with most of this although i'd suggest that for many models diesel residuals are fine and in many cases better than petrol. Forget issues around potential repair costs, why would an average punter want a petrol when the diesel gets better mpg, costs less to tax and has more mid range shove making for easier overtaking and giving that feeling of being fast. WRT reliability issues, the used market is supplied by the new market and buyers of new cars are covered by the manufacturers warranty. They don't need to worry about repair costs and servicing prices are pretty predictable, even more so if you purchase a servicing pack with the car. In fact for the buyers of new cars pretty much the most unpredictable cost is fuel. Given how much fuel prices have risen it makes a lot of sense for a new buyer to limit their expose to rising prices buy picking a more economical diesel.

I am suffering from the problem of there being very few petrol models for sale though. I'm trying to find a new car for my wife and as she does about 5k a year a diesel is not suitable. However try finding an S-Max or Galaxy with a petrol engine.

[CraigyMc]

Devil2575 said:

I'm trying to find a new car for my wife and as she does about 5k a year a diesel is not suitable. However try finding an S-Max or Galaxy with a petrol engine.

Autotrader shows 76 petrol versus 1012 diesel S-maxes nationally, which proves your point